Trump May Hurt Hollywood With Remake of Copyright Office

by

For years, there has been a tense relationship between AI firms and content companies over who owns the rights to content. This battle has now moved to a less prominent office in Washington, with potential significant implications for the film, TV, and music industries.

The dispute revolves around Shira Perlmutter, a seasoned lawyer who heads the U.S. Copyright Office. Her sudden dismissal by President Donald Trump last weekend could be seen as a major victory for Big Tech against content creators. However, the situation is far from straightforward and isn’t over yet: on Tuesday, Trump announced new appointments to replace Perlmutter, and these individuals might not align with Big Tech’s expectations.

The conflict started when Perlmutter and her team published a report on Friday addressing the contentious issue of whether AI companies can utilize copyrighted works such as news articles, films, TV shows, and songs to train their models. This matter lies at the heart of numerous lawsuits, with rightsholders like record labels and media companies claiming that their material is being used without permission and then fed to a model whose outputs compete with their own products.

The 108-page report was written in cautious legal language. It stated, “The public interest requires finding an effective balance, enabling technological innovation while sustaining a vibrant creative community.” However, Perlmutter’s team also challenged tech companies’ claims that they should be allowed to train models on unlicensed content under the fair-use exception. In other words, they disputed the loophole upon which many tech companies base their operations.

The report brought relief to artist advocates. Ed Newton-Rex, an expert in AI music and formerly of Stability AI, told The Hollywood Reporter that it “supports what many people in the music industry have been saying for a long time … This report is very clear that AI companies cannot assume that all generative AI training is fair use.

The dismissal of Perlmutter by Trump, for which the White House has yet to provide an explanation, eliminated a crucial defense for content companies. Although the Copyright Office lacks legislative authority, its insights can significantly influence Congress and the judicial system (“judges often find [the Copyright Office’s] expertise convincing,” as Blake Reid, a professor at the University of Colorado law school, pointed out in his Bluesky commentary on the matter).

Trump firing Perlmutter has left content companies without a key protector. Although the Copyright Office can’t make laws, its opinions can be very important for what Congress and courts decide (“judges often find their opinions convincing,” as Blake Reid explained on Bluesky).

The genuine concern that this situation might signal a shift in focus towards creators and content developers is quite valid, asserts music and copyright attorney Lisa Alter, co-founder of Alter, Kendrick and Baron, to THR.

In the realms of both music and film, key figures have voiced their apprehension. An unauthorized policy leader within the industry confided in THR that the termination is “extremely troubling”. We’re grappling with an existential crisis, trying to decipher what this could mean, is this a green light for fair-use exploitation without limitations? Moreover, recent statements by Elon Musk opposing intellectual property rights, which are instrumental in safeguarding creators’ work and generating revenue for content companies, have only added to our unease.

Reid Southern, a concept artist and illustrator for major Hollywood film series, who is also known for his criticism towards AI companies, expressed concern over the incident of Perlmutter’s dismissal as a potential expansion of Big Tech. “This report was crucial,” he stated during an interview, “and as soon as it happens, this administration reacts with a strong counteraction. It’s not surprising but incredibly annoying.

As a staunch supporter of creativity, I firmly believe that if tech companies are allowed to exploit people’s innovative work for their own financial gain, it could potentially devastate entire creative sectors. This perspective was shared by someone else, who also pointed out that Perlmutter’s unjust termination is likely to have a severe impact on the entire copyright community. She recognized what many of us understand – that human creativity and authorship form the bedrock of copyright law, and unfortunately, it seems this recognition cost her job.

However, organizations such as the MPA, RIAA, SAG-AFTRA, WGA, and others have yet to voice their opinions on this dismissal. The American Federation of Musicians has already released a statement expressing their concern, emphasizing that Perlmutter’s understanding of the crucial role of human creativity in copyright law is something we all should value.

As a dedicated follower of the tech world, I couldn’t help but feel a pang of apprehension on Monday, as some activists cautioned that the dismissal of Perlmutter might embolden tech companies to seize existing data with renewed vigor. This could lead to them negotiating more assertively, potentially diminishing the bargaining power of media companies and content creators alike. An anonymous source from my company, who preferred to remain unidentified due to not being authorized to speak to the press, expressed that AI firms might interpret Perlmutter’s firing as a “green light,” using it as an opportunity to aggressively acquire content.

However, an unexpected turn of events occurred on Tuesday. The Verge disclosed that the individuals charged with assuming the Copyright Office positions are Paul Perkins and Brian Nieves, who have a history of being critical towards Big Tech and AI corporations. Notably, Perkins served as a DOJ official during Trump’s first term where he prosecuted fraud cases, while Nieves previously worked as a lawyer for the House Judiciary Committee and its chairman, Jim Jordan – an Ohio Republican known for his aggressive pursuit of Big Tech.

As a gamer, I’ve taken up a new role, stepping into the shoes left by Perlmutter’s boss, Carla Hayden, as the Librarian of Congress – and now, I find myself at the forefront of a case against Google, led by the Justice Department. This isn’t a win for Big Tech, but rather, it feels like a significant triumph for the hardcore MAGA Republicans, who seem to be growing increasingly wary of AI companies trying to seize control.

Despite the views held by Trump appointees on AI matters, the dismissal of Perlmutter seems to mark a remarkable shift away from the traditionally non-partisan stance of the Copyright Office, Alter notes. This change could potentially raise broader worries for artists and content creators.

Or:

The termination of Perlmutter indicates an unusual departure from the longstanding political neutrality of the Copyright Office, as suggested by Alter, which may cause significant concerns among artists and content creators.

Shira Perlmutter was an expert in intellectual property law,” the attorney points out. “If, hypothetically, the Library of Congress and copyright office were influenced by a conservative political perspective, might they withhold copyright protection for materials that don’t align with the current government’s views?

While artists’ advocates wait for the courts to take action, they hope they can fill the gap, particularly regarding AI matters. In a notable case, The New York Times is currently engaged in a lawsuit against OpenAI and its financier Microsoft over copyright infringement. The suit cites numerous instances of verbatim reproductions of the newspaper’s journalists’ copyrighted work in ChatGPT outputs. It alleges that OpenAI, led by Sam Altman, operates as a profitable business to a significant extent based on the unauthorized use of copyrighted works. OpenAI argues that training their models on existing copyright material falls under fair use protections.

This spring, a federal judge granted permission for the primary argument to proceed, and the eventual resolution of the case may influence whether the rapid advancement of training large language models can persist.

As a gamer, I’d say it like this: “In the gaming world, big music corporations are taking legal action against AI song-creation platforms Suno and Udio, claiming that they’re using unauthorized music to train their models, which is a major copyright issue.

Some media companies, such as News Corp, Dotdash Meredith, and the Associated Press, are among those that have entered into agreements with OpenAI. This raises the question for others who haven’t, while entities like Ziff Davis, The Intercept, the publisher of The New York Daily News and the Chicago Tribune, on the contrary, have taken legal action against the company.

Last year, some record labels demonstrated a readiness to explore AI-generated music by showcasing personalized playlists featuring specific artists, such as Charli XCX, Demi Lovato, and John Legend, through YouTube’s AI experiment called Dream Track, which involved Universal Music Group (UMG) and Warner Music Group (WMG).

Film studios have mostly avoided getting involved in disputes regarding video-based Generative AI tools, but their stance on AI copyright is intricate. They are cautious about others misusing their content, yet they might also wish to employ these AI tools for streamlining production processes. Consequently, there’s a possibility that they could support the removal of hurdles such as creator permissions in the training process.

Certain production studios have been discreetly collaborating with companies like Runway AI, OpenAI, and others, experimenting with their advanced models. Last month, Harmony Korine’s studio became the first to sign a deal (first-look agreement) with Runway AI, while it is rumored that larger studios are engaged in less formal partnerships with them.

While some film companies have embraced innovation, GKIDS, the U.S. distributor for Studio Ghibli, has shown skepticism towards a new tool that allows users to easily mimic Studio Ghibli’s unique animation style. Chance Huskey, the distribution vice-president, remarked with a touch of irony, “In an era where technology aims to replicate human creativity, we are delighted that audiences still appreciate a theatrical experience that honors and applauds Hayao Miyazaki and Studio Ghibli’s masterpiece in its original, hand-drawn cinematic splendor.

On Tuesday evening, Southern expressed optimism regarding the appointment of Perkins and Nieves; however, Newton-Rex advised caution when speculating about Trump’s stance on AI and intellectual property rights, as he has demonstrated support for Big Tech at times while also catering to a more MAGA-oriented crowd, which makes it unclear where his true position lies.

Or:

Southern expressed optimism about the appointment of Perkins and Nieves on Tuesday, whereas Newton-Rex suggested caution when assuming Trump’s standpoint on AI and intellectual property rights, as he has shown loyalty to Big Tech at certain moments but also appeals to a more MAGA audience, leaving his position uncertain.

As a gamer, I’m keeping my fingers crossed that the White House will stand up for user privacy against Big Tech overreaching and data grabs without consent. “I’m not sure where the current administration stands on these matters,” I can only speculate based on their past actions and promises.

Read More

2025-05-14 16:25